Effects of Warming

Goofy Theory of the Day

171 Comments

From NewKerala.com, via the Thin Green Line:

According to Prof McGuire, in Taiwan the lower air pressure created by typhoons was enough to “unload” the crust by a small amount and trigger earthquakes, reports the Scotsman.

Uh, right.  We don’t know what triggers earthquakes in general, so we certainly don’t know the affect of atmospheric conditions on earthquakes.  This is outrageous speculation from an all night session at the pub, breathlessly reported as actual news.

Let’s do a thought experiment.  A strong typhoon might drop local atmospheric pressure by 0.2atm.  The pressure at the bottom of the ocean averages 200-600atm, and under a few miles of rock is even higher.  I would challenge someone with measurement instruments on a fault to even detect such an atmospheric change.  Even on surface faults, we are talking about gigatons of force held in check by friction — this is roughly the equivalent of a feather landing on the Empire State Building and collapsing it.

I sometimes wonder if we will see a future SAT question whose answer is “climate studies are to science as alchemy is to chemistry”.

171 thoughts on “Goofy Theory of the Day”

  1. This one’s almost as good:

    “They added that global warming only increased the level of volcanic activity.
    “At the end of the last ice age, the rate of eruption in Iceland was some 30 times higher than historic rates.
    “This is because the reduction in the ice load reduced the pressure in the mantle, leading to decompression melting there.
    “Since the late 19th century the ice caps in Iceland have been shrinking yet further, due to our changing climate.
    “This will lead to additional magma generation, so we should expect more frequent or more voluminous eruptions in the future.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7611663/Volcano-ash-Threat-of-second-volcano-Katla-10-times-the-strength.html

  2. Wifey’s niece has lived in Taiwan for 5+ years and has always been spooked by the persistent and ongoing small to medium earthquakes in her town. She wants to leave Taiwan (with the family in tow) at the earliest opportunity, for that reason.

    By the way, is Prof. McGuire’s “unloading” of the robust or the un-robust variety? Or is it just a robust tipping point?

  3. If this hypothesis had any validity, there would be a demonstrated correlation between tropical storms (typhoons and hurricanes)and seismic activity. Has anyone seen a credible data suggesting such a relationship? Surely it would be easy to demonstrate such a correlation, should it in fact take place.

    I have been a geologist for several decades, and I have never seen such data published.

  4. Could be something to that typhoon theory. I seem to recall reading about higher sea levels under low pressure cells, but I think it is considerably less than normal tidal changes. Still, it could trigger something that was about to go, especially in conjunction with tides. You could probably estimate by changing pressure from mm Hg to inches of H2O.

    -T

  5. This would be totally laughable, if it weren’t coming from someone lots of folks would view as a ‘reputable’ member of what’s perceived as an established academic community. I can’t think of a more telling indictment of ‘climate science’ as a discipline that it possesses members of its academic community who blandly would toss something this ludicrous out without even a single shred of evidence to support it. The ‘climate science’ community appears to be nothing more or less now than another one of those soft ‘social’ sciences (read: not really science at all) for which purely academic speculation is treated as if it were something more. Climate Science takes its proper place alongside ‘Political Science’, ‘Social Science’ and ‘Anthropology’ as just another of variety of academic vaporing.

  6. It wasn’t the typhoon. Every man, woman and child in China climbed onto a table and simultaneously jumped off, while, at the same time, a butterfly flapped its wings in Argentina.

  7. “Climate alchemists” that says it well. I think I will borrow the term.

    There is nothing bad which hasn’t been ascribed to global warming from volcanoes to freezing Peruvian villages.

    These people have no shame and are oblivious to how silly they appear to someone of average intelligence.

  8. The one I have used in the past is “Climate science is to real science as professional wrestling is to real sports.” I think others have used it as well.

  9. “The question of whether a climate scientist does science is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine swims.”

    (with apologies to Edsger Dijkstra).

  10. Climate science is to real science as drag racing is to Formula 1. Lots of money, lots of noise, and not much sophistication. (Says a real geologists and sometime racing driver.)

  11. Typhoons trigger earthquakes? Doubtful.

    Though I’m willing to bet money that lunar phases do.

  12. I am always amused by your frequent statements that “we don’t know” various things. Why use this bizarre royal “we” when what you mean is “I”? Rather obviously, you haven’t actually read the papers mentioned in the article. Instead, you follow your normal approach of failing to understand, lacking the intellect even to realise that you don’t understand, and declaring that it must be nonsense without even having actually read the study.

    You are too stupid to realise how stupid you are. You are too stupid to ever respond to criticism of your anti-intellectual ramblings. You are too stupid for words. Your stupidity is disgusting, and your public flaunting of it even more so.

  13. hunter ~ I’ve just come to this site and have already seen several of your posts. I have worked in climatology with the Meteorological Service of Canada for 31 years and have followed the climate change debate since 1974. In all those years I have seen the full range of exchange from incredibly astute, well-informed and highly intelligent to utterly devoid of value, a sort of compendium of fallacious reasoning. I thought I had seen the extremes of those poles but I had not yet encountered you.

    Your entire communication is bald assertion without evidence combined with egregious name-calling. Why do you bother? You must find Warren attractive. Are you a stalker? Why don’t you ask him out on a date? Perhaps you needn’t live your life unfulfilled. Who knows?

  15. Hm…On the off chance Warren is reading the comments, I tried to do a post which probably triggered your spam filter do to links. Since most of these comments devolve into arguments between trolls who attack you in a very personal level, I can understand if you don’t notice this. But if you do happen to see this, I would appreciate if you could dig that post out of your filter-I link to some images and a report by the JTWC.

  17. A lot of kooky yet eerily similar predictions were made by doomsday sayers back then.
    Guess what? We’re still here and doing better than ever!

  19. vimy100,
    You’ve come off no better than hunter – actually, worse since you’ve stoked the fire of fallacious reasoning then thrown yourself into the flame.

    1. Ad Verecundiam.
    2. Ad Hominem.

    Bravo, (not so) well done.

  20. I posted this over on the “Earth Day” thread. These are the papers in question:

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919.toc

    I’m just curious – has anybody actually read the papers, or are you going to rely on a one-sentence excerpt from a newspaper-style article and Mr. Meyer’s very balanced response to it? After all, we’d want to follow a “thought experiment” over empirical science, right? The apt analogy to a feather on the Empire State Building – that makes the case for sure

    I see another poster claiming a deep science background (vimy100) – certainly you will be interested in reading the actual scholarship involved, yes? ADiff refused because the journal title has “Philosophical” in it – therefore it is not science. Personally, the whole theory sounds fairly unlikely to me, but so does the concept of uranium-235.

  22. Try this experment take plastic bag say about a foot square, make it air tight with a drink straw fitted to it. Now place a piece of board over the top and add weights on top. See how much weight you can lift just by blowing in the straw you will be amazed just how much you can lift !

  23. vimy100,
    And just to help make things more confusing, the ‘hunter’ you are referring to is a roll who used to be call itself ‘scientist’ but decided to demonstrate how to reach new lows in trollhood and borrow my name.

  25. “The ‘climate science’ community appears to be nothing more or less now than another one of those soft ’social’ sciences (read: not really science at all) ”

    To ADiff:
    i don’t suppose you’ve read the IPCC’s fourth assessment report? and you probably haven’t wondered why governments around the world upon hearing evidence from this “soft social science” are now investing billions of pounds to avoid climate change.

    Perhaps you can offer how ongoing sea-level rise, polar warming, intense coral bleaching, polar ice retreat, ocean acidity can be explained by ‘academic vaporing’?

    Is there a reason why twenty of the warmest years since the 1800’s have occurred since 1980? or 11 of the warmest in the last 12 years? climate science has a sound scientific basis and is put into disrepute by people like you. Furthermore, many of the advancements in science have started out as outrageous theories and been panned by the scientific community – perhaps you have heard of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    Im not saying Prof McGuire is correct in any way, but i am sure that you are ignorant in tarring the climate science community.

  26. Take a look at the scientific consensus mabe: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), The American Chemical Society (ACS), The American Geophysical Union (AGU), The American Meteorological Society (AMS),The Geological Society of America (GSA), G8 science academies, the Oregon Petition, NASA, The UK MET Office. Some clever minds in there, and all of them agree mankind is changing the climate. Maybe take a look at countries around the world, why would china be investing heavily in alternative forms of fuel when coal is the cheap and easy option?

    And why do studies by Richard Lindzen continue to be published when his scientific method continues to be proven flawed?

    Climate change is real, the time for skepticism is long past

  27. It is distressingly predictable that new true believers show up and make the same argument that since so much money and so many people who claim to know something agree that AGW is real, it must be.
    Here is what one cliamte scientist says that helps to put skeptical thinking in context:
    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/
    I like this part of the interview:
    “Corruptions to the IPCC process that I have seen discussed include:
    • lead/contributing authors assessing their own work – (e.g. von Storch criticism in 2005), in some cases resulting in an overemphasis on their own papers written by themselves and their collaborators;
    • tailoring graphics and not adequately describing uncertainties ostensibly to simplify and not to “dilute the message” that IPCC wanted to send;
    • violations of publication (in press) deadlines for inclusions of papers in the IPCC report;
    • inadequacies in the review process whereby lead/contributing authors don’t respond fairly to adverse criticism; this inadequacy arises in part to the authors themselves having ultimate authority and in part to cursory performance by the Review Editors;
    • evasiveness and unresponsiveness by the IPCC regarding efforts to investigate alleged violations occurring in the review process;
    • IPCC Review Editors and authors using the IPCC to avoid accountability under national FOI legislation.”

    In particular.

    Badn and NEILC, First the list of what NEILC claims as evidence of a climate catastrophe is simply counter factual. Badn, listing people who agree with you as proof of something is no proof. And since when did governments spending money on something mean the money is being spent well or effectively, much less on an actual problem?
    If you are simply here to assert that since people you agree with all agree that CO2 is causing a climate catastrophe, you are wasting your time.

  28. Badn,
    By the way, asserting that the time for skepticism is long since past is one of the more oxymoronic assertions one can make regarding a science issue.

  30. You see, Neil and Badn, the good folks here are under the impression that the world governments and the global science community have been corrupted by the massive amounts of money and lust for power (which equates to some sort of socialist / Marxist “restructuring the economy”). They are very self-congratulatory and seem to believe that they are the avant-garde of a revolution to take down the evil world-wide conspiracy of scientists – the commentators here are somewhat self-aggrandizing in this respect.

    In addition, the good folks here claim to understand the science better than the actual scientists, particularly after reading cross-postings of blogs and newspaper articles. The real research papers or the websites of actual scientific organizations…? Not so much.

  31. Agree Waldo. But the deniers’ll prob. argue against your marxist point, and then conclude that you are generally full o’ shit.

    They will prob. also invoke the appeal to authority fallacy, as inappropriately as ever.

    They might argue some insignificant semantics.

    All up, not much will be agreed upon. But AGW theory will still stand solid because they can’t be bothered publishing their supposed refutations or flaws of AGW.

  32. Well remember, Shills, that peer-review is “not perfect,” and the fact that there has been the occasional error or a modicum of sloppy record-keeping obviously disproves the massive amount of information gathered over a 25 year period from the best trained, best equipped individuals from around the world.

    But rather than actually reading the science (no one seems interested in the papers posted above which are the subject of this particular post), I suspect we are meant to focus on the occasional outlaying scientist or, at best case scenario, a parks-manager with a business degree. Throw in some personal vitriol and an unproven allegation or two about the scientists involved, and I think you’ve summed up the denialist case fairly well.

    And yeah, I have noticed a distinct lack of publication for most denialist theory – oh wait, I forgot blog science. You know, I have a blog somewhere. Guess that makes me a scientist too…

  33. Waldo or Shills:

    I don’t quite follow. How does the validity of the science imply that the politics is not corrupt? Shouldn’t that be a separate debate?

  34. to HUNTER: “counter factual”.

    Now lets talk about facts hunter – its strikes me that you argue with very little of them. The stats that i have cited are facts – not even a climate scientist who is anti-climate change would argue against them. Richard Lindzen, one of the most famous climate change critics himself worked with the IPCC producing the second report. The argument against climate change is not aimed at current observations but at future predictions. Perhaps you should bother to research this. And by you ‘listing things’ you think you know about the IPCC report, as evidence of some sort of climate cover-up, is hypocritical. You give yourself away by the mere nature of your posts: full of hot air but very little substance, just as i suspect your knowledge of the climate is.

    Now, a few years down the line, when climate change, caused by anthropogenic activities has flooded your house, please come visit Scotland, which will benefit from a milder climate, and i will endeavor to welcome you with the last laugh.

  35. And walldollar is right on the money: your knowledge that you believe gives you insight into the subject area, and thereby providing you with sound criticism of actual climate scientists – like myself – is based around websites such as collide-a-scape.com? Come and get off your high horse, you are an imbecile, but in your own words, “you are too stupid to realise how stupid you are”

  36. Hello Hunter: let me respond by me asking you questions and you attempting to answer them:

    1) Why would the vast majority of climate scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming and the future predictions, while a small proportion do not?

    2) Why would there be an attempted cover up and fudging of data by the IPCC? What would there be to gain from this? I doubt they are all guilty of sensationalism. So tell us all, why the desperation in depicting a ‘a global catastrophe’ without one being imminent?

    3) Im sure you are right in pointing out that government spending is not always constructive or done for the correct reasons. So can you suggest any reason that the worlds governments may be spending this money, other than in avoidance of climate change?

    Please try to respond without slander, earlier i noticed this ‘distressingly predictable’ comment from you:

    “What is this weird compulsion you have about displaying in as many ways as possible how stupid you are? The more videos you produce, the less you seem to understand. And it’s not just that you don’t understand. You’re not even capable of understanding that you don’t understand. Dopy fucking cunt”

  37. Badn,
    1) whatever the reason, it does make those who think we are experiencing a global climate catastrophe any less wrong.

    2) Why not? Coverups and corrupt practices have happened in every area of human activity. Why is climate science immune?

    3) because the people they like and respect tell them it is a great thing to do.

    4) That answer should come from the troll who posts under my name. And who is by the way, a great true believer in AGW. I have no idea of the medicine or pathology behind that particular poster. I did not write what you are referring to. If you can gain some insights to her/him/it, please share them.

    My working idea on AGW is that it is only marginally about science at all. It is a social mania, like the tulipomania of Dutch fame, or eugenics of the last century. The fact that tulips still bloom or that evolution and genetics are valid science, does not make the ideas about the importance or value tulips or genetics as they were manifested in the economy or government policies good or useful.

    NEIL C,
    Arctic ice pack is very close to the 30 year moving average, and you have no idea what the longer term moving averages are. Worldwide ice pack is up.
    World temperatures, even if one accepts the GISS/CRU product as accurate, shows a change over ~130 years that is not remarkable.
    Ocean levels are rising about as they were.

    Your last characterization is not based on a quote of anything I have said. In fact that post was by an AGW believer troll insulting the host of this site for being a skeptic.
    See my post above.
    You are not the first anonymous poster to claim to be a climate scientist. Perhaps you are the first to actually be one.

  38. Hi Mike,

    ****”How does the validity of the science imply that the politics is not corrupt? Shouldn’t that be a separate debate?”

    I was a little confused by the wording of the first question, but I think you are asking, ‘Can’t the science be correct and the politics corrupt?’ And, of course, the answer would be “yes” – something that probably everyone can agree on.

    What has not been proven, however, is that the “politics” (presumably of the scientists and world organizations) is “corrupt.” The CRU emails (the usual province of denialist theory) are anti-climactic when one actually reads them, and the CRU scientists have been officially cleared with some pretty believable explanations for many of the buzz-words and phrases (“trick,” “hide the decline”) that galvanized so many of the denialists.

    And yes, I agree, these should be a “separate debate.” But that is what bothers me about places like CS. Read the blogs and the posts. It is pretty clear that Mr. Meyer and the people who follow him are politically motivated.

  39. A brief summary of what you think is going on but is not:

    The fact that Antarctic sea ice is growing is qualitatively consistent with the, agreeably, counterintuitive prediction of coupled ocean-atm models of increasing sea ice around Antarctica with climate warming, due to the stabilizing effects of increased snowfall on the Southern Ocean. This i believe will be where you find worldwide ice pack increasing. I really dont know how you could call 20th century and past 20-year warming unremarkable, considering long term, simple and accurate instrumental temperature trends from the last century alone, and regardless of palaeo-studies which further emphasise the remarkable sudden warming, that perfectly coincides with anthropogenically produced CO2. Were you to perhaps write a thesis and invest years of studying on palaeo-climate and modern change you would be convinced of this beyond all doubt, but im sure you have not. Please understand that this is not a form of gloating, only a simple point that investigation is far superior than speculation.

    Eustatic rise is also consistent with physical models of a thermally expanding ocean. Thermal expansion, combined with pervasive, sustained and accelerating melting of ice caps, glaciers etc have been modeled to give a rise of say 60cm by 2100. This is without incorporating the effects of the greenland and major antarctic ice sheets, of which their dynamics are not fully understood, but should a large degree of melting occur, will likely add meters of rise on top of this.

    Your lack of knowledge is outstanding. I expect this since the fact that you say AGW is only marginally based on science leads me to believe as i suspected, that your stance on this is largely based on ideology and not on fact. I am further convinced of this by your conspicuous inability to answer the questions set out by Badn with any competence, but rather more ridiculous conjecture and hear-say thieved from amateur blogs.

  40. Now, now Neil, you are actually talking science here. That’s going to make people mad! Plus it would appear that you have some actual qualifications in the field – and that’s going to make them madder still!

  41. Waldo:

    Sorry about the confusion. Perhaps I am confused as well.

    The corruption I was referring to was not of the science or the scientists, but the corruption inherent to government and politics in general. Your defense of the science seemed to imply a defense of the politics as well. I see I was mistaken.

    I don’t know enough about the science to argue with it. My objections are to the proposed solutions. And corruption is not the reason. I just don’t see how it is possible to accomplish anything on a global scale, or how anything less than a global effort would be effective.

    The final outcome of all this will be decided by politicians, not scientists. So, my objections are purely political, and thus, by definition, “politically motivated”.

  42. Ah, got’cha, Mike.

    Well I won’t necessarily argue that corruption is or isn’t inherent to government – personally I rather think some politicians are corrupt, but the majority are like the rest of us, simply trying to do their jobs as best they’re able (and screwing up a lot along the way). A portion of every population is going to be corrupt, after all, and a portion is going to be honest, hardworking, etc. (and a portion is simply going to screw-up along the way).

    So sure, let’s debate the final outcome. I sure don’t have an answer and, as you seem to suggest, you believe there might be nothing to accomplish anyway.

    But let’s take the scientists off the firing line and let them do their jobs. If you disagree with the politicians, take it to the politicians – although it is also possible that something can be done and, with that possibility in mind, perhaps we should let the politicians and political powers do their work?

    People like the CS tribe here want to weigh in on the scientific conversation but it becomes rather apparent after any time spent here that they are very politically motivated, scientifically uninformed, opinionated, and frankly too lazy to actually check on the veracity of their own pontifications. Now that bothers me.

  43. NEILC,
    Perhaps your reading skills at this blog- which are lacking- contributes to your faith in AGW.
    You could not tell the difference between my posts and a pro-AGW poster using my name.
    My point, and you demonstrate it well, is that AGW is only marginally about climate science.
    Climates change and CO2 is a ghg. That has never changed as long as the physical laws have existed. The only new thing is the sad case of group think and self-deception practiced on a large scale that convinces you and an ever shrinking number of people, that a climate apocalypse caused by CO2 is underway.
    But you are just another anonymous self-declared climate expert spouting talking points about a catastrophe that is not occurring and is not going to occur.
    Thermal expansion yields sea level changes unremarkably different from the rate of rise before thermal expansion was declared.
    Your ability to parrot talking points is outstanding and I would offer that you are just another troll, with or without education, who is seeking to cling to the faith in AGW you are so committed to.
    There is no climate crisis underway. There is nothing dramatic or dangerous in the lcimate we are experiencing. And you, no matter how much you wish otherwise, have any evidence of this not being the case.

  44. Hunter,

    Indeed i did mix up two posters with the same name, an easy mistake. However you have mistaken me for a ‘troll’, a fairly presumptuous allegation but one which does not phase me. Regardless, you are now in a position where you are blindly arguing against the science and the facts again and it shows:

    thermal expansion, implies by name, that the oceans are responding to an increase in temperature. Put in other words, the 1-2 degree surface ocean warming that has occurred in the last century (and further again predicted in the next century) exceeds the total tropical SST variation from the previous 18,000 years. Unremarkable indeed. You fail to read and understand my points about projected and observed future sea-level: Sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm/yr for the past century, and more recently this has accelerated, probably between 2.5-3.5mm/yr, and though sea-level is notoriously difficult to determine due to a number of factors, it is highly probable that this is due to thermal expansion and increased ice melt. It is all about margins of error you see, that is why we do statistics, and not speculative google searches: I can picture the exact figure that you have googled and taken as an understanding of the subject.

    Regardless of this minor debate, it is only small fraction of the combined evidence, all pointing towards human-induced warming. So i would question your reading skills, since you have read nothing of the science, bar a quick google search.

    Now, disregarding your attempts to try and diminish my views, you have no defense. If you were to try and get some credibility to your argument, you would get evidence for it, rather than attempt to undermine me. You prove your vulnerability through use of words such as ‘faith’. Rather than an obtaining an abundance of evidence against climate change (of which there is none) to bolster your views, you have chosen blindly to disregard AGW evidence by clinging to shreds of malicious evidence about its corrupt conception.
    I have shown no evidence that i cling to any dogma, AGW is not a deity that i revere. But you have shown considerable evidence of your complete lack of insight, and persistently illogical and sensationalist attitudes that have no place in a scientific discussion.

    I guess in simple terms i mean:

    I have a tonne of evidence for AGW and i can ‘spout’ it all day long, you have barely a shred of science to back yourself, that is why you turn to zealous hyperbole about cover-ups, corruption and attempts to undermine. The only case of self-deception taking place around here is near you. Someone get a taxi for this man because he is finished.

  45. Hmmm, seems like this site has been infected by trolls.

    If anyone would like to see a presentation given by McGuire in London last year, let me know. You will then be able to decide how much of a scientist he is.

    The IPCC admits to a direct warming caused by a doubling of CO2 of less than 1C. The rest of its alarmist projections as they are known are dependant on positive feedback of which it has no evidence or is yet to publish any.

    It also relies on climate models. As on its own admission, we do not understand many climate processes, the models cannot work, which is why they all predict more warming than is happening.

    Cheers

    Paul

  46. Well thats simply not true:
    climate models have accurately simulated past events in climate very well using coupled feedback mechanisms between ocean, climate and vegetation, one example of MANY being the sudden drying out of the Sahel region 5500 years ago. Or the glacial cycles. Or the PETM. Accurately predicted using climate models, but of course, to you they cannot work. In fact short term (as in five years) warming has been underestimated by most climate models only a few years old, so what do you think will happen to long term projections?
    Many climate feedbacks are well understood, and have been demonstrated to be changing, providing positive feedbacks already and due to be strengthening, such as the terrestrial forest feedback, ocean carbonate solubility feedback, soil carbon feedback, ice albedo…etc etc etc.

    I really am fighting a losing battle on a skeptic website, and i don’t for one minute expect to convince you, but you certainly will not be changing my mind about human-induced warming, especially upon hearing your flaccid abstractions. At the end of the day (or decade), we shall see who was in the right either way.

  47. The thing of it is, Neil, the people here want very badly to believe in a “global warming hoax” – science is entirely unnecessary to them for this purpose. You are a “troll” to them because you disagree and because you have specific, expert knowledge of the phenomena involved.

    I think Laurent’s comment from the “Colorado Presentation” thread is most illuminating; Laurent is responding to my questions “Why, laurent, would you go listen to a layman when you could listen and learn from an expert?” and he/she/it responds:

    ******”When I was in school, we had a very good guy in Maths in my class. We had another guy that was definetly less good, but still better than the rest of the class. Guess whom we asked for help?
    That was not that the best guy was not helpful, he was. But he was “too good” to be able to explain, he could not put himself at the place of somebody with difficulties, as for him math was “natural”. The second guy was the one helping. Good enough to discuss with the best guy if he did not understand something, but weak enough to know what it meant not to understand. He was the best teacher, simply.

    ****”So what I mean is that it is helpful to have people trying to simplify and sort the information if you don’t have time or capacity to do it yourself.”

    In other words, Laurent gravitated not to the most accomplished or qualified person, but to the person who Laurent could understand (I wonder how Mr. Meyer likes his apparent analog to the “definitely less good” guy?). And I’m willing to bet that a lot of the people here gravitate to Mr. Meyer’s commentary simply because he is comprehensible, can be read in about a minute, and tells them what they want to hear; the actual science, on the other hand, is far too complex and takes far too long to learn about. I suspect that the people here very badly want to be involved in the climate debate but cannot in any medium except the blogosphere where they can make the sort of flaccid abstractions you comment upon and feel relatively safe doing so. That is, until someone like yourself shows up (the boards have been very quiet as of late…I also suspect that the hoax-trolls have gone into hiding).

    So please, keep up the commentary. I find it interesting anyway, even if it is over my head. And remember, other people with open minds come to this site also and they very well may read your commentary: you might be doing a lot more good than you think.

    Oh, and by the way, hunter is not the brightest guy and will continue to flaccidly abstract for as long as you are willing to post. I ignore him most of the time.

    Cheers.

  48. NEIL C,
    You are fighting a losing battle because you are wrong.
    No matter how many assertions of authority you make, there is still not apocalypse happening or due.
    By the way it is a bit of a stretch to be able to say in your opening sentence that GCMs are good and then to say they are under estimating things.
    Your closer- that we will see who is right at the end of the day or decade was used 20 years ago, and things are still bumbling along about as they were and well within normal climate and weather, and still no closer to an apocalypse or tipping point now than they were then.
    But good try and better luck next time.

  49. Hunter:
    Thank-you for proving my point perfectly – you simply say i am wrong without any science to back yourself. again!

    Noone has mentioned the phrases ‘climate apocalypse’ or ‘climate catastrophe’ here except you.

    The GCM’s simulate the past well since humans are not involved, they underestimate short term, and therefore very likely the long term, since the time-scale of which humans are changing the atmosphere is unprecedented in the last 20 million years. Rate of change is the key.

    If things are bumbling along as usual, why have the hottest years on record been nearly consecutively in the last 20 years? why are incidents of extreme weather higher than on record? Why are anomalously hot days and nights more frequent than on record, and anomalously cold days and nights fewer than on record?

    Answer me those hunter without bullshitting. Bon chance

  50. NEILC,
    As I re-read your posts, you have only made assertions as well.
    Mine happen to be based on reality, yours based on AGW talking points.
    Your claim about hottest years is irrelevant, since the data used is highly questionable, the period of measuring is arbitrary and claimed ‘hottest’ is so trivial as to be transparent junk.
    In terms of ‘bullshitting’, you have arrived claiming to be an active climate scientist, which you are not, asserted that you are referring to science, which you are not, and have admitted you are not winning anything being here.
    So just who is spreading used cow food?
    Why you. You are just a true believer hoping to spread your gospel to the wicked denialist scum. IOW, a troll.

Comments are closed.